The catalogue
Sources
94 sources, triaged by content-reuse licence (93 done, 1 pending). Open means we may extract and store the content, restricted means link-only, and unknown means no clear signal was found.
18 of 94 sources (filtered · clear)
- CampaigningForumsUnknown
Action Network Organisers
Hub for organisations, unions and grassroots groups to come together
Action Network Organisers ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
actionnetworkorganisers.org.uk is a single-page community hub (hosted by nonprofit Small Axe) describing itself as an "open and crowdsourced space" for Action Network templates/datasets/case studies, but this "open" refers to collaborative contribution, not a formal reuse licence. No copyright notice, CC badge, or terms/licence page exists on the site itself (/terms, /privacy, /about, /resources all 404 as standalone URLs; footer only says "HOSTED BY" Small Axe). The host org's separate corporate site (thesmallaxe.org) has its own "All rights reserved" notice, but that isn't explicitly tied to this resource hub's crowdsourced content, so it wasn't used to call this restricted. No explicit statement either way after homepage, likely legal pages, and web search.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Activists Resource Hub
Signposting for activists, to other resource banks and websites
Activists Resource Hub ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
After an exhaustive look I found no content-reuse signal in either direction for activists-resource-hub.com. The site (created by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Social Change Lab) is a Cargo.site-hosted "edited guide" that, by its own homepage text, exists "to point you to some of the brilliant resources available for UK activists" — i.e. a signposting directory rather than an original content library. I fetched the homepage, About, Inspiration and Practical-Tools pages and read the footer: it contains only two partner logos (SCL and JRF) with no copyright notice, no licence statement, and no Creative Commons badge. Every candidate legal page (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /privacy) returns HTTP 404, and the site's own sitemap.xml lists every page on the domain — none is a terms/licence/copyright page. There is no creativecommons.org link and no <link rel="license"> in the head; robots.txt only blocks SEO/audit bots and says nothing about reuse rights. A web search surfaced only background descriptions, no licence terms. Caveats: (1) there is no site-wide licence either granting or denying reuse, so under default copyright the safest assumption is that reuse is not permitted without asking — hence "unknown" rather than "open", and conservatively closer to restricted in practice; (2) most of the actual substantive material lives on the third-party sites it links to (Commons Social Change Library, Beautiful Trouble, NEON, Activist Handbook, Changemakers' Toolkit, Climate Advocacy Lab, Resource Centre), each of which carries its own separate licence that would need assessing individually; (3) the original-content footprint on this domain is very small (short category blurbs), so it may be of limited value to ingest regardless. Recommendation: link only / contact the operators ([email protected]) before extracting and storing. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningToolsUnknown
Automic free software
Co-op that designs free software
Automic ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked autonomic.zone thoroughly: the homepage, /about/, the /gdpr/ privacy policy, /our-ethical-guidelines/, and a blog/resource post all load (HTTP 200) but carry no content licence, copyright notice, or Creative Commons badge; the standard /terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, and /legal pages all 404. A raw-HTML scan of the full 81KB homepage (including its WordPress footer) found zero occurrences of "copyright", "©", "licen", "rights reserved", or "creativecommons.org", and a web search surfaced no site-specific reuse terms. The site's only freedom-related statement ("free as in freedom software wherever possible") concerns the software they build/run, not a reuse grant on their website text, so it cannot be relied on. With no explicit reuse permission and no explicit all-rights-reserved notice, this is a genuine no-signal case = unknown; note that UK default copyright still applies absent a licence, the assessment is site-wide (per-resource pages showed no individual licences either), and embedded third-party material could differ. Triage only, not legal advice; safest path is to link rather than store, or email [email protected] to confirm.
- CampaigningCase studiesUnknown
Case study library
Case study library of previous grants
Funders Collaborative Hub ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked the homepage, the case-studies listing, an individual case study (exploring-ai-for-grantmakers), the toolkit, and the about page, plus the standard legal paths (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /privacy) which all return HTTP 404. The site (run by the Association of Charitable Foundations) shows only org/registration details in its footer and a single off-site ACF privacy-policy link; there is no copyright/reuse statement, no Creative Commons badge or link, and no per-item licence on the case study pages, and web searches surfaced no reuse terms. The toolkit page says its templates "can be downloaded and edited... to suit your needs," but that is functional guidance for funders using fillable tools, not a reuse licence, and it does not apply to the case-study content being assessed. With no explicit open licence and no explicit all-rights-reserved/no-reuse statement, the content-reuse position for the case-study library is genuinely unclear (caveat: assessed site-wide for the case studies; the toolkit templates and any embedded third-party material could differ); UK works are copyright by default, so do not extract/store without confirming permission with ACF.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Classroom resources
Resource collection on digital organising
re:power ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The homepage footer shows only a bare "© 2026 Re:power" copyright notice with no "all rights reserved" or reuse language. There is no Terms of Use page (repower.org/terms-of-use/ returns 404); the Privacy Policy page covers data/cookies only and has no IP/licensing clause; the Credits page covers photo/design credits only. Checked an actual resource PDF (Equity Informed Targeting guide) directly and found no copyright/licence statement in its metadata or content either. No Creative Commons links or "free to use/share/adapt" statements were found anywhere on the site.
- CampaigningFunding opportunitiesUnknown
Collaboration opportunities hub
Opportunities for funding
Funders Collaborative Hub ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked the homepage footer, the /about page, multiple terms/legal pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /legal, /copyright — all HTTP 404), the sitemap.xml (which confirms the site has no terms/legal/licence pages at all), several resource pages (Toolkit, the "Create a Written Agreement" template, and the Collaboration Resource Library), and ran a web search — finding no Creative Commons badge, OGL, or any content-reuse statement anywhere. The footer carries only a bare organisational copyright/registration line for the operator (Association of Charitable Foundations; Company No. 5190466, Charity No. 1105412) and a cookie notice. The site describes its toolkit as "free, practical" and says templates "can be downloaded and edited... to suit your needs," but that is permission to use the fill-in templates for your own collaboration, not a licence to extract and re-host the Hub's content — so it does not qualify as "open"; equally there is no explicit all-rights-reserved reuse prohibition, so the conservative result is unknown. Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment (no per-resource licences were found either), and the resource library is an external Google Sheet linking to third-party organisations' materials whose own licences would govern separately.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Library
Resource library
Campaign Lab ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The Library page (campaignlab.uk/library/) has an informal tagline "Take what you need. Share what you can." but this is not a formal licence and gives no specifics on what reuse is permitted. No footer, privacy policy, or checked individual resource pages (Lobbying on a Shoestring; Organising and Mobilising Your Campaign) contain a Creative Commons badge, copyright notice, or explicit terms of reuse. A web search surfaced an unverified snippet suggesting the Campaign Lab blog uses CC BY-SA 3.0, but this could not be confirmed on the actual blog page and would in any case apply to blog posts rather than confirmed to apply to Library resources.
- CampaigningToolsUnknown
Mapped
Tool for organisers and activists to locate their people by constituency and more
Common Knowledge ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
No copyright notice, Creative Commons badge, or terms-of-use page addressing content reuse was found on commonknowledge.coop or mapped.commonknowledge.coop (homepage, footer, privacy policy, about page, and a sampled article/blog post were all checked). Common Knowledge's GitHub org does open-source several software repos under MIT/GPL-3.0/AGPL-3.0, showing an open-source ethos for code, but the Mapped tool's own repo (ts-mapped) currently has no licence file, and code licensing is separate from whether the site's written content (articles, research writeups, guides) may be reused — no such statement exists for the latter.
- CampaigningForumsUnknown
Progressive Exchange
Online community to share information about online strategies, tactics and tools
Progressive Exchange ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Progressive Exchange (progressiveexchange.org) is a thin WordPress landing page whose sitemap lists only four pages (home, /about/, /contact/, and a default "hello-world" news post); its real activity is a members-only Google Group, not published web content. I read the full page HTML including the footer on two pages: it contains only a logo and an "About" link, with no copyright notice, no "all rights reserved", and no Creative Commons or other licence badge/link. All standard licence pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /about, /privacy) return HTTP 404, and there are no resource/guide/toolkit pages to carry per-item licences. A web search surfaced a CC BY-NC-SA notice, but it belongs to a different, unrelated organisation (Australia's "the change agency"), not this site — so there is no licence signal either way. Caveat: this is site-wide triage; the substantive content actually lives in the gated Google Group, which was not assessable and may carry its own terms.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Relationships Resource Hub
Repository of blogs, podcasts, books, frameworks, academic articles and more
Relationships Project ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Thorough investigation found no content-reuse licence anywhere on relationshipsproject.org. The homepage and the /resource-repository page carry only a charity-host notice ("THE RELATIONSHIPS PROJECT IS HOSTED BY GRAPEVINE (COVENTRY AND WARWICKSHIRE) - REGISTERED CHARITY: 1107969") with no copyright line, no "all rights reserved", and no Creative Commons badge. The only legal page that exists is a privacy policy (covers personal data only); /terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /license, /legal, /about(/our-work) yield nothing relevant and most return HTTP 404. A search hit's phrase "All of our work is open and everyone is welcome to get involved" (on /about/our-work/) refers to open participation/collaboration, not a content licence. Raw-HTML grep surfaced only third-party software licences for bundled front-end code (animate.css "Copyright (c) 2015 Daniel Eden", GPL v2, MIT) — these govern the site's code, not its content. Two important caveats: (1) the "Resource Repository" is largely a curated directory of links to THIRD-PARTY content (SSIR, The Guardian, Substack, Medium, Psychology Today, etc.), each governed by its own publisher's terms, not by this site — so extracting/storing those items is a separate per-source question; (2) for the Relationships Project's OWN materials (e.g. Bridge Builder's Handbook, Relationships Heatmap) no licence is stated either. With no explicit reuse grant, default copyright applies, but because there is genuinely no clear signal the conservative verdict is unknown rather than restricted; reuse would require confirming with [email protected]. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Resources and case studies
Case studies from organisations which are cobudgeting
Cobudget ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
No content-reuse licence is stated anywhere I could verify. The footer on every page only says "You are using Cobudget. Source code available online" (linking to GitHub) with links to Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions, but carries no copyright notice or Creative Commons badge. The /terms-and-conditions and /about pages are client-side rendered and returned only the page shell across direct, repeat, and text-proxy fetches, so I could not read any IP/content clause to cite either way. Two actual resource pages (the "5 steps" guide and the Enspiral case study) show author attribution ("By Francesca Pick") and "SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE" links to external Medium/Greaterthan publications, but no per-item licence, copyright line, or reuse permission. Crucially, the GitHub repo's AGPL-3.0-or-later licence governs the software code only, not the website's editorial content, so it is not an open-content signal. Caveats: the unreadable T&C body may contain an all-rights-reserved or IP clause I could not access; and the resources include third-party republished content that would carry its own separate rights regardless of any site-wide terms. Triage only, not legal advice.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Self Defence resource library
Collection of digital self-defence resources for activists
The Digital Self-defence Collective ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Checked the homepage footer, /resources index, /privacy, /contact, and two actual resource pages (post-arrest guide, "Basic Security in a Digital Age" zine) — none contain a copyright notice, "all rights reserved" statement, Creative Commons link, or any explicit reuse/terms language. A web search for the site plus licence terms found nothing specific. No statement either permitting or forbidding reuse was found, so neither "open" nor "restricted" criteria are met.
- CampaigningToolsUnknown
Tech Hub
Tools Tipping Point UK offers support on
Tipping Point UK ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Checked the Tech Hub page, the site homepage footer, and the Privacy Policy page; none contain a copyright/licence statement beyond "Published by Tipping Point UK, 2021" with no CC badge or reuse language. No separate Terms/Copyright/Legal page exists on the site, and a web search for licence/terms references tied to the domain returned nothing site-specific. Note: some third-party tools recommended on the Tech Hub page (e.g. Baserow) are described as open source, but that refers to software, not Tipping Point UK's own written guidance/content.
- CampaigningForumsUnknown
The Campaigning Forum (ECF) Community
Global network of campaigning and advocacy practitioners
FairSay ↗Licence: none found (general content); event participant photos/video/audio are CC BY-SA 2.0 UKevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked the ECF community page, the fairsay.com homepage, the knowledge base, two real resource pages (a "web brief" guide and an ECF news post), the privacy policy, and the event-policies page; the candidate legal pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /about) all return HTTP 404. There is no site-wide copyright notice or content-reuse licence anywhere, and the privacy policy covers only personal data. The single Creative Commons reference (CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 UK, on the event-policies page) is scoped strictly to participant photos/video/audio from events, and the only explicit "copy/adapt" grant is limited to cross-promotion marketing snippets — neither covers the knowledge-base guides, news posts, or toolkits a content library would extract, several of which are written by named third-party authors. With no licence signal and no explicit reuse permission for the general content after a genuine look, the conservative verdict is unknown rather than open; this is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
The Commons Social Change Library
The Commons Social Change Library
Commons Library ↗Licence: Mixed / per-resource (contributors choose CC BY, CC BY-NC-ND, Public Domain, or All Rights Reserved per article)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The site's own "Writing for The Commons Social Change Library" page states contributors select a licence per article - Creative Commons (including CC BY and CC BY-NC-ND) or "All Rights Reserved" - shown in a licensing box at the bottom of each resource page; this was corroborated by search results showing specific resource pages tagged "All Rights Reserved" alongside others under CC BY-NC-ND. Direct fetching of commonslibrary.org pages returned HTTP 403 (bot protection) both live and via web.archive.org, so evidence comes from search-engine summaries of page content rather than raw HTML I read myself - a human should verify by opening a resource page directly. Because there is no single site-wide licence and reuse permission must be checked per item (some open, some non-commercial/no-derivatives, some fully restricted), a blanket open/restricted verdict would be misleading; recommend per-resource licence checking before extraction.
- CampaigningValidated professional servicesUnknown
The Relationships Map
Directory of individuals and organisations
Relationships Project ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
After a thorough pass I found no content-reuse licence for relationshipsproject.org. The homepage, the target "Relationships Map" page, and three real resource pages (Case Maker, Glossary, Resource Repository) carry no copyright, Creative Commons, or reuse statement in body, footer, or raw HTML; the footer only credits the host charity (Grapevine) and links a Privacy Policy that contains no IP/copyright clause. Standard licence/terms URLs (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /legal, /license) all return 404, and a web search surfaced no reuse terms. The only licence strings in the page source (GPL v2, MIT/animate.css) belong to the WordPress theme and JS libraries, not the editorial content. Caveat: this is a site-wide finding with no explicit grant either way — absence of a licence defaults to all-rights-reserved by copyright, so treat as link-only until confirmed; also the Resource Repository aggregates third-party resources whose own licences differ (per-item check needed). Conservatively classed unknown rather than restricted because no notice was located after a genuine look; contacting [email protected] would resolve it.
- CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsUnknown
Wiki guidance to set up co-ops
Wiki guidance to set up co-ops
Radical Routes ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The Radical Routes co-ops wiki (MediaWiki 1.45.3, Citizen skin) carries no content-reuse signal anywhere I looked. The homepage footer omits the standard MediaWiki copyright slot entirely (only site description, Privacy/About/Disclaimers links, a 'get involved in developing this wiki' tagline, and a 'Powered by MediaWiki' icon). The three footer policy pages are unconfigured defaults: About is a 'To be written' stub, and General_disclaimer/Privacy_policy/Project:Copyrights return 404. Two real resource pages (Forming_a_group, Loan_stock) contain zero copyright/licence/Creative Commons/attribution markers in their HTML, so there is no per-item licence either; a web search and the parent org's resources page also yielded no reuse terms. Caveats: this is a site-wide finding and silence is not permission, so I treat it conservatively as unknown rather than open; the GPL on Special:Version covers only the MediaWiki software, not the content; the wiki invites editing/contribution but says nothing about extracting and re-publishing content. Triage only, not legal advice — confirm with the Radical Routes Digital Working group before reuse.
- CampaigningMembership orgsUnknown
Youth and local groups
Network of local organising groups
Global Justice Now ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked the source page and homepage footers (only company/charity registration numbers, no copyright or Creative Commons notice), probed standard terms URLs (/terms/, /terms-and-conditions/, /terms-of-use/, /copyright/, /license/ all return 404; no terms-of-use page exists), the privacy policy (GDPR/data only, no IP or reuse clause), the about page, the resource library, and two actual resource pages (a leaflet and the activist-guides hub) — none state any per-item or site-wide licence, and no creativecommons.org links appear anywhere. A web search for the site name plus licence/reuse terms returned nothing specific. There is no signal either way: no explicit free/open reuse grant and no explicit all-rights-reserved statement, so under a conservative reading this is unknown rather than restricted. Caveats: this reflects the site as crawled today (note the materials carry future-dated 2026 timestamps, suggesting recent/possibly mirrored content); a licence could exist in PDF resource files or a print/staff handbook not surfaced on the HTML pages, and any reuse would still need to exclude embedded third-party material (e.g. quoted statements, partner logos). This is triage, not legal advice.